This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 90 : Double taxation relief-DTAA overrides provisions of section 206AA-Rate of tax to be applied for grossing up should be as per DTAA-No substantial question of law. [S. 206AA, 260A]

CIT(IT) v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd (2024) 166 taxmann.com 316 / 469 ITR 267(Karn)(HC) Editorial : Delay of 402 days. Application seeking condonation of delay did not assign any satisfactory reasons for delay nor were they sufficient in law to be condoned, SLP is dismissed. CIT v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 590 / 469 ITR 269(SC)

S. 90 :Double taxation relief-DTAA overrides provisions of section 206AA-Rate of tax to be applied for grossing up should be as per DTAA-Delay of 402 days in filing SLP-Delay is not explained satisfactorily-Delay is not condoned-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 206AA, Art. 136]

CIT v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 590/469 ITR 269 (SC) Editorial : CIT(IT) v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd (2024) 166 taxmann.com 316 / 469 ITR 267(Karn)(HC)

S. 90 :Double taxation relief-Elimination of double taxation-Review petition dismissed against order of Supreme Court that a notification under section 90(1) is a mandatory condition to give effect to a DTAA, or any protocol changing its terms or conditions, which has effect of altering existing provisions of law and thus, for a party to claim benefit of a same treatment clause, based on entry of DTAA between India and another state which is member of OECD, relevant date would be entering into treaty with India and not a later date, when, after entering into DTAA with India, such country becomes an OECD member, in terms of India’s practice-DTAA-India-France [R. 128, Art. 10, 13]

Nestle SA v. AO (IT) (2024) 300 Taxman 361/ 341 CTR 320/ 243 DTR 88 (SC) Editorial : AO(IT) v. Nestle SA (2023) 155 taxmann.com 384/ 296 Taxman 580/335 CTR 145/ 231 DTR 113 (SC)

S. 80IC : Special category States-Manufacture of pan masala (Mouth freshener)-Pan masala without any tobacco content will not fall within purview of Entry 1 of Part A of Thirteenth Schedule and assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IC(2)(a)(i) read with section 80IC(3). [S.80IC(2)(a), 80IC(3), 260A]

Unicorn Industries v. PCIT (2024) 300 Taxman 347 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 80IB (10) : Housing projects-Project was sanctioned prior to 1-4-2005-Concept of built up area was introduced with effect from 1-4-2005 could not be applied retrospectively-Expression built up area would exclude balcony area-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S.80IB(14), 260A]

PCIT v. G.K. Developers (2024) 300 Taxman 331 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Trading in resign and chemicals on whole sale basis-Information from Sales tax Department-Order of Tribunal restricting the addition to 12.5 % of gross profit is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 133(6), 145(3) 260A]

PCIT v. SVD Resins & Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 503 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Search-Diary-Unexplained general expenses-Legal expenses-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S. 132, 153A, 260A]

PCIT v. Timblo (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 343 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Search and seizure-Duplicate account-Yield in various years-Finding reversed relying on statement-Order of Tribunal is restored-Miscellaneous application against the order of Supreme Court is dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 132, 143(3), Art. 136]

ACIT v. Kantilal Exports Surat (2024) 300 Taxman 99 (SC) Editorial : ACIT v. Kantilal Exports Surat (2023) 293 Taxman 531/ 454 ITR 112 /332 CTR 610/ 225 DTR 357 (SC) M. Kantilal Exports v. ACIT (2011) 330 ITR 185 (Guj)(HC), reversed.

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Failure to consider TDS challans-Matter is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer-Directed to pay cost of Rs.15000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.[S. 142(1), 143(3), 147, 148, Art. 226]

Basheera Begum v. Jt. CIT (2024) 300 Taxman 160 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Export of Rice-Search by Enforcement Directorate-Alleged mis-declaration of value of goods exported-Dropping of proceedings by Enforcement Directorate-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is affirmed.[S. 148, 260A, FERA]

CIT v. Sachdeva & Sons (2024) 300 Taxman 211 (P&H)(HC)